Whitby Park-&-Ride: 20 Unanswered Questions

Whitby --> Featured --> Whitby Park-&-Ride: 20 Unanswered Questions

Whitby Park-&-Ride: 20 Unanswered Questions

Whitby Park-&-Ride: 20 Unanswered Questions

  • RICHARD INESON takes readers through a thorough analysis of 20 unanswered questions relating to the Whitby Park-&-Ride Public Consultation process.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 1. Why are all of the residents of Whitby going to be paying to provide a park and ride scheme and car parking which will only be of benefit to the commercial sector?

2. Why were the members of the Whitby and District Tourism Association allocated 700 parking spaces when the whole of the east side of  Whitby were only allocated 63 spaces, and belatedly, access to Zone A, a zone which is not adjacent to Zone J, as was promised and which is hardly convenient for the east side of Whitby, especially for the elderly and infirm?

3. Why was there no effective resident representation on the EAST SIDE STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUP, whilst there was on the other two SSGs?

4. The SSGs were dominated by representatives of the tourist associations and the commercial sector. Why did Council officers not supervise the selection of the members of these SSGs and then advise the members, of the right and morally correct course of action, when any proposals were put forward which could be seen to favour one section of the community above another?

5. The P&R scheme is supposed to give priority to residents, as regards parking their vehicles, in fact, the proposals actually reduce the number of parking spaces available to residents. For instance, at present I have access to 2,200 spaces, if the scheme goes ahead I will have access to only 63 spaces and any which may be available in Zone A.

As regards the original stated aim of the park and ride scheme i.e. to give priority to residents as regards parking spaces, suddenly, when funding was obtained from the government under the Local Sustainable Transport Fund grant, the main aim was changed, without any consultation, to providing car parking for ‘day trippers’.

6. The proposal to give Zone J residents, access to Zone A parking spaces has not taken into account the demography of the east side, bearing in mind that Zone A is not in any way adjacent to Zone J. We were told that additional parking would be made available ‘in an adjacent zone’ I took this to mean Zone B, D, E, G, H, but not Zone A, the zone furthest from Zone J.

When I enquired, at the consultation, where these adjacent zones were situated, I was told, that the residents of the east side, would also be able to use Zone A. this is situated near the cricket ground and centres around Upgang Lane. In my dictionary, ‘Adjacent’ means, lying near, contiguous. ‘ Contiguous’ means, touching, adjoining, neighbouring. ‘Neighbouring’ means, person or thing next to one another.

7. Upper Church Street is a special case, in that unlike all the other ZONES, there is no on street parking in this area at all, in recognition of this fact, the residents of upper Church Street should be given access to parking spaces in all of the Zones.

8. There is no need for Whitby to be divided into zones at all , Nick West himself, said so on the front page of the Whitby Gazette of 18th June, 2010, “The park and ride doesn’t hinge on having all these zones” which seems quite clear to me, even he admits that all of these zones are unnecessary.

There is no problem with finding a parking space at present, except at exceptionally busy times such as when the Regatta and Whitby Folk Week clash.

The whole of the parking spaces should  be available to all residents.

To ensure that visitors use the park and ride, they should not be allowed to use the on street parking spaces, this is a simple solution and cheap to organise – parking bays marked out in white paint, a few signs saying RESIDENTS PARKING ONLY, and a few TRAFFIC BEAGLES enforcing the rules.

9.The sole reason that the town is to be divided up into zones, can only be to exclude residents from parking in certain zones, this is to ensure that the members of the tourist associations, the hoteliers and the B&B proprietors, get the 700 parking spaces they asked for, right outside their premises, predominantly  in Zones B and D.

Once residents are prevented from parking in the West Cliff zones, the spaces they occupy at present, will be available for the use of the customers of the members of the tourist associations, who dominated the STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS, which is also why they are not complaining about the P&R car park closing at 7.00pm.

If this goes ahead, we will see empty parking spaces in many zones, awaiting the arrival of customers for the hotels and boarding houses, particularly in Zones B and D where parking spaces are plentiful, whilst in Zones such as J, parking spaces will be oversubscribed, i.e. full, and east side residents will then have to park their cars in Hawsker or Lythe or even further afield.

10. The parking spaces have not been allocated fairly, the commercial sector was over represented on the three SSGs, the residents of the east side,  did not have any dedicated, meaningful/effective representation, on the east side/Church Street SSG.

11. Residents are going to have to pay for a parking permit for a parking space (currently free of charge) which, for the majority of residents, is unlikely to be available.

The fees from the permits/on street parking charges, are to be used to pay for the park and ride, in other words, residents are going to have to finance a parking scheme which is detrimental to their interests i.e. does not provide them with a parking space whilst increasing the pedestrian congestion of the streets.

The courts are expected to rule presently on the issue of Councils making a charge for a service, (this is known as ‘billing for unprovided services’) that may not have been provided or available for provision. One barrister likened it to charging for the provision of water, whilst users are left to pot-luck, to stumble upon a working tap.

Does this make sense?

12. The P&R  will make little, if any difference to traffic congestion in Whitby, the car park only has  parking for 450 cars, assuming that the 200 overspill spaces are included.

The car park, because it will close at 7.00 pm, will, if it is used at its maximum capacity, merely provide another 1000 or so customers for the fish and chip shops, boozers, bars, cafes, rock shops, restaurants etc. i.e. day trippers, who will just cause more congestion of the streets, noise, litter, unruly behaviour, and cost money (funded by the Council tax payer) to police and clear up the mess they will leave behind?

Feedback from SBC street cleansing staff highlight the vast quantities of  very objectionable waste and rubbish they have to deal with, this includes alcohol related litter, glasses, bottles and used condoms, as well as food containers associated with the fast food outlets. Urine and vomit need to be cleaned off regularly.

Has anybody considered the detrimental effects on the lives of residents, all of these extra day trippers, will cause?

13. The whole P&R scheme has been ill thought out, the opportunity to improve the lives of Whitby residents, has been subverted by the iniquitous STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUP system the members of which, together with the SECRET WHITBY TRAFFIC PARTNERSHIP, decided , upon the boundaries and hence the numbers of parking spaces, in each parking Zone, the membership of these SSGs was dominated by the commercial sector, in particular, the tourist associations.

14. Mr. West is quoted in the Whitby Gazette, August 16th 2013 as saying,

  • “We are not trying to implement anything that we haven’t got support for.”

But that is exactly what NYCC are trying to do, the parking scheme proposed for the east side is exactly the same as the one which was rejected by the residents in the 2006 so called ‘public consultation’ so why has it been resurrected in connection with the P&R scheme?

15. The P&R scheme was supposed to give priority to residents as regards parking spaces, instead, the scheme will provide more customers for the commercial sector and provide less parking spaces to most residents, and they will be charged for a service (car parking) which NYCC cannot, by their own admission, provide.

Further,  on 22nd July 2013, Mrs Justice Lang declared at London’s High Court that the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act ‘is not a fiscal measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge local residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes’.

Had Barnet fought off today’s challenge, local councils all over the country would have found themselves with sweeping powers to use parking as a revenue-raising service.

The ruling was a victory for the Barnet CPZ Action group, made up of parents and residents from the borough, and David Attfield, who brought the lead case.

Mr Attfield, who lives in a borough CPZ at East Finchley, won the quashing of the council’s decision in February 2011 to dramatically increase the charges with effect from April 2011.

  • The judge rejected arguments put forward by council lawyers that it had powers under section 45 of the 1984 Act to raise a surplus from parking charges for transport functions.

There were no parking charges in Mr Attfield’s quiet residential road until the CPZ was first introduced in 2001 to prevent tube commuters parking in local streets.

The cost of a permit for a first car was initially £20 and visitor vouchers cost 35p each. The charges were increased in 2006. But it was in 2011 that they leapt for a first car from £40 to £100 and visitors’ vouchers from £1 to £4 – among the highest CPZ charges in London.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said of today’s ruling quashing the increases: This is fantastic news for drivers. This decision should never have been in any doubt. The law is explicit – parking charges are about managing congestion, not raising revenue.

16. The County Council’s Residents’ Parking Policy which requires that, at the consultation stage, over 50% of all premises (not just 50% of those replying) should be in favour to enable the necessary Traffic Regulation Order to be proceeded with, was, not observed/just ignored/suspended.

17. Objections/comments sent by letter or email, relating to the P&R parking scheme, in 2010, which were sent to the Whitby area office, by letter or email, were, for some inexplicable reason, excluded from the consultation document prepared for members (Councillors).

This means that only the views of those members of the public, responding to the consultation document on the official form – the space allowed for comment on this form incidentally, measures 2.5cms x 15.5 cms, were taken into account.

18. Why have residents in Zone J been given access to car parking spaces in Zone A when there are Zones, for example B, D, G, H, with plenty of on street parking spaces which are much nearer to Zone J, and would therefore be far more convenient for their use?

19. No account was taken, in allocating parking spaces in Zone A, for the use of residents in Zone J, of the demography of the East side of Whitby. This information is readily available, so why has it not been used? Why do we pay many thousands of pounds to experts to gather and analyse this information, presumably for the use of planners and Council officers, in situations such as this, and then these planners and Council officers, fail to use this valuable information, to the detriment of the public?

20. There are 2,200 on street car parking spaces in Whitby. The east side of Whitby was allocated 63 spaces, later, it was decided to allow east side residents, in Zone J, access to spaces in Zone A, with no guarantee of a space of course, and the zone furthest away from Zone J.

Can you explain this please?

park_if_you_can

By |2013-08-20T11:09:49+00:00August 20th, 2013|Categories: Featured, News|Tags: , , |35 Comments

About the Author:

Website Admin for the Real Whitby Website. All authors of the Real Whitby Website have access to publish on the website. Individual authors will usually sign off their articles with their own names.

35 Comments

  1. Brian Dodds August 20, 2013 at 8:00 pm - Reply

    None of this comes as any surprise, it has long been a favoured tactic of this bunch of self serving hypocrites. When they want to introduce something that they know will not benefit the majority of tax payers they either load the decision making process with people who will benefit from it or they hold the meeting behind closed doors so as to prevent any representative of the residents lodging any objections. Whether their behaviour is illegal or contravenes the rules of conduct doesn,t seem to make any difference, they will always resort to bully boy tactics in the end and do what they want anyway.

    • diana Jeuda September 2, 2013 at 3:20 pm - Reply

      Urgent, urgent., urgent.

      Nick West will be at the town council meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday September 3rd. 6.45 pm Pannet Park. Please be there to tell him that the Nycc proposals are wrong, wrong, Wrong. They’ve been turned down before and they are still wrong.

      They claim to give residents priority. That just isn’t true. You don’t even have priority over visitors, even in your own zone. The visitors of hoteliers in your area have identical rights to you.

      There IS a sensible alternative. One Parking Zone covering the whole of Whitby giving all Whitby residents the right to park as we do now. And permits for the villages as happens in Pickering.

      We need a HUGE turnout so he hears what Whitby thinks about these madcap proposals which prevent us meeting our friends and family freely, risks isolating the housebound, cuts many of us from the town centre and ignores our wider Whitby community living in our surrounding villages
      P
      People power can beat this. But this needs a huge turnout. PLEASE COME

      • Jeff Booth September 5, 2013 at 11:28 pm - Reply

        yes, we must make our feelings known.
        They are giving us a small skirmish to win, (they know they will lose the argument about all the zones), but they think that this will appease us and that they will get away with winning the war.
        We cannot let this happen.
        We must not lose sight of the bigger picture.
        They are going to be taking a seven figure sum out of the local economy with the car parking charges. There is nothing wrong with the car parking at the moment. I work off Flowergate and I can always find somewhere to park, at any time of the year. The Park and Ride does not need subsidising by car parking charges in the town, if it does, then it is either mis-managed or a bad scheme.
        Do not lose sight of the bigger picture.
        Jeff

  2. Tom Brodrick August 20, 2013 at 9:14 pm - Reply

    Dear Mr Bowe and Mr West, Mr Flinton, Cllr Plant & Cllr Kenyon……………..

    I’ve just had my hair cut at Contemporary Salon on Flowergate, followed by a coffee in Java Cafe on Flowergate, if you imagine 17 young members of staff in these two typical small business on Flowergate. Not to mention all the other multiple staffed businesses on Flowergate, Skinner Street………………the entire West Cliff…

    Mr Nick West states that “there will be a period of tolerance while things are settling in. Most people will be RESTRICTED to parking in the zone where they live or where their business is based with ONE permit allocated for EACH (single) business at a cost of £77 pounds, with others available if an OPERATIONAL NEED can be shown !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What like the numerous estate agents on Flowergate who employ numerous staff, cafe’s, restaurants, bars, furniture stores, clothes stores………. “others available if an OPERATIONAL NEED can be shown”?!?

    NYCC’s Mr West, please can you clarify, define and explain to us businesses what an “OPERATIONAL NEED” is supposed to mean?

    Who within NYCC will be the Judge and Executioner of the “OPERATIONAL NEED” and how many staff will be employed by NYCC?

    Young staff, pay their Business Rates, pay their taxes on their small meagre wages, running a car with thousands to pay on their insurance bills, monthly.

    Most live out of town, Skelton, Brotton, Guisborough, Saltburn……………. and like many many people who work / service the tourist industry and who travel into Whitby from towns and villages nearby.

    They work usually from late morning to late evening, after the P&R is closed.

    Those who work in hair salons as an example, have to rush home to get kids from school when they finish work, using the Park & Ride. Having to finish work early, not able to do the late one night opening… NO that’s not going to happen. They will quit their jobs and work elsewhere, if they can! Well done NYCC’s Mr Bowe, Cllrs Plant and Clls Kenyon…….what are you going to tell them.
    Tell them that you are sorry you did not think of that in your closed and secret misrepresented meetings.

    1) Can you explain to me in detail how the Park & Ride system will affect the lives of people who work in Whitby / Sandsend in these typical types of industry?

    Will the Park & Ride travel to Sandsend and cater for those young members of staff working in the numerous small successful cafe’s pubs, art gallery, hotel, surf shop and numerous other businesses in Sandsend now that you have priced them out, taxed them out of a JOB. Have you thought about that Cllr Plant and Cllr Kenyon. What are you going to tell them as they pour cash into your greedy parking meters….

    2) Please can you tell me how these workers will get around this system when bus routes and social services are being slashed by NYCC?

    3) If I regularly visit a friend across town in a different parking zone, one and a half miles away for a cup of tea each afternoon, 300 days a year, can you tell me how it will affect my routine and how it will affect my friends life when he only gets 50 tickets allocated each year, when I have to park up, walk to friends house, get ticket, walk back to my vehicle, scratch it, put in on the dash board and then walk back to friends house?
    Are you going to tell them to “use the Park and Ride” No that’s not what you are going to do, so what are you going to tell them?

    4) Then I perhaps visit another friend or the dentist in another area of town………… Can you explain in detail the process I will have to go through?

    5) Can you explain in detail how someone elderly will have to make journeys into town to visit an elderly friend, infirm, messing around with scratch cards, to and fro from their vehicles. Can you tell me in detail how it will affect their lives, can you tell me why visits between people will become less and less and less, less care, less companionship…………………….fewer visits……..…

    6) There are many many people too proud to register as disabled, many people who really struggle on, often with chronic pain, many many people on the verge of being eligible for a disabled badge, but don’t quite make it, can you explain to me in detail how their lives will be affected and what excuse are you going to give them.

    7) Can you tell me, in detail, how all those volunteers who offer a free carers service to their friends, often on a daily basis, how much their routine will be affected / effected, how many visits they will cut short, or just not bother with, in detail can you tell me how their lives will be affected, both the carers and the person being cared for, the risk of isolation and solitude battering someones mind? The need to rely more on their friends for care as you screw up their lives slashing social welfare, slashing bus services, even the volunteer sector, those small charitable minibusses driven by volunteers.

    8) School runs, parents having coffee mornings, looking after infants, how their lives will be affected………

    9) Where will all the public signposts and notices go?
    a) How many more street posts with signs on the top?
    b) What will the notices look like?
    c) How close together will they have to be along each and EVERY street?

    10) Who within NYCC will be the Judge and Executioner of the “OPERATIONAL NEED” cited by NYCC’s Area 3’s Nick West “as a requirement for local businesses”, should they want more than one £77 permit? That will rise steeply as the years roll by.
    10a) How many staff will be employed at NYCC’s headquarters to run this complicated, ill considered, thought out entire scheme?

    11) Why could you not just identify the finite problematic areas where residents are suffering from parking issues and come up with a cost effective residents parking scheme?

    12) Can you explain to me in detail what research you carried out to see how individuals would react, regular people, to such a scheme?
    (This can’t be answered by NYCC because no research was ever carried out).

    13) Where will people visiting Whitby Hospital during the day be able to park? (The hospital as we all know has a tiny car park that is full during the day?

    The public and small businesses were NEVER EVER considered in these secret meetings, meetings dammed by the Local Government Ombudsman as being biased.

    The list is endless, this is the most complex, inconsiderate parking scheme to be imposed on the citizens, the workers (commuters as they put it) and the visitors of this town, perhaps in the entire United Kingdom. It will hit headline after headline after headline in newspapers the length and breadth of the country.

    Imposing parking charges along an open stretch of road between Sandsend and Whitby is criminal, why do people who want to visit and enjoy a beach have to pay a single penny? It’s their right, their entitlement Cllr Plant & Cllr Kenyon, it’s not a Fun Fair Ride Mr Flinton……… where you tax people who come for a bit of fresh air.

    I look forward to your responses Mr West, Mr Bowe, Mr Richard Flinton, Cllr Kenyon, Cllr Plant….!

    I suspect, like the secret stakeholders meetings that decided this scheme behind closed doors, no meetings minuted, no public participation, secret meetings dammed by the Local Government Ombudsman……. names and contact details of those who held the meetings were withheld by NYCC citing the “data protection act” even though the meetings were held behind closed doors by County and Borough Councillors inc stakeholders (whatever that means), residents of Whitby excluded……..

    This is one vast mistake NYCC’s Mr Nick West, NYCC’s Mr David Bowe, County Council Councillors Cllr Plant and Cllr Kenyon, it is the most ill considered, ill conceived plan if ever there was one, there were no Whitby residents represented, included, considered, no analysis……

    This will cost NYCC’s ratepayer probably in excess of £6,000,000 pounds and will have such a dire ADVERSE effect. A tax put upon, no thrust upon tens of thousands people, residents, visitors, workers and those residing in nearby villages.

    The worst part of it all is that NYCC’s Mr David Bowe, Mr Nick West and Mr Flinton have already made the decision, the Park & Ride has already been given the green light, it is going ahead, whether you like it or not, whether you protest or not, whether you agree or not, whether you fill in a questionnaire at Whitby’s tourist information Centre or not, whether you attend the Northern Area Committee or not………whether you knew about it or not, it is a DONE DEAL THAT IS GOING AHEAD!

    These questions will never be answered in detail, what individual workers, residents, visitors will each have to do. It will take too long and read like a disaster.

    merry-go-round
    A revolving machine with model horses or cars on which people ride for amusement.
    A continuous cycle of activities or events, especially when regarded as pointless: “the park & ride merry-go-round” No public consultation ever properly taken out even though public opinion kicked out the idea in 2010.

  3. Tom Brodrick August 20, 2013 at 9:16 pm - Reply

    If there is a two hour waiting limit for non residents that would mean they could park up at say 4-30pm and remain there until first thing the next morning. This would not help those residents returning from work etc only to find they cannot park.
    Disaster, it will catch on and make the whole thing pointless. Merry-Go-Round

  4. Tom Brodrick August 20, 2013 at 9:20 pm - Reply

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

    In a report of a similar nature the LGO made the following comments regards NYCC’s Mr Flinton’s, Mr Bowes and Area 3’s Mr Nick West, including County Councillor Cllr Plant and County Councillor Cllr Kenyon’s use of Stake Holder Steering Groups.

    In the LGO’s final decision to a Whitby resident (Mr Richard Ineson) the LGO had the following to say about “Stakeholder Steering Groups”. The exact same groups who decided that there should be a Park & Ride in Whitby!

    13 May 2013
    Complaint reference:
    11 019 419
    Complaint against:
    North Yorkshire County Council

    LGO’s Decision

    Redacted

    38. I consider there is fault in how the Council has handled the making of the traffic
    regulation order (TRO) introduced in 2009. The Council is at fault for the reasons
    given below. I make some recommendations and propose ending the
    investigation on that basis.

    39. The Council’s highways department failed to record key actions. There are no
    officer notes, no record of research, no minutes of the stakeholder steering group
    meetings and no report (see paragraphs 31 & 32). The lack of such evidence
    matters because it makes it difficult to conclude that the Council made a valid
    decision.

    REDACTED

    43. The stakeholder steering group had discussions with some businesses and the
    Council says that the group considered all the options (see paragraphs 18 &31).
    However, that group was not a decision making body. There is a difference
    between discussing matters with interested parties and carrying out a probing
    analysis.

    44. I consider that the Council failed to establish a stakeholder steering group with a
    balanced membership. There is a preponderance of business people (see
    paragraph 16) with few, if any, representatives from local residents who live on
    the street. This is unfortunate because it gives the impression of bias. I cannot
    judge how the group acted in practice because there are no minutes of meetings.
    This is an area the Council needs to reconsider if it is to use this type of group
    again.

    REDACTED

    Merry-Go-Round
    A revolving machine with model horses or cars on which people ride for amusement.
    A continuous cycle of activities or events, especially when regarded as pointless: “the park & ride merry-go-round”

  5. Tom Brodrick August 20, 2013 at 11:09 pm - Reply

    Dear Mr Bowe and Mr West, Mr Flinton, Cllr Plant & Cllr Kenyon……………..

    It’s important that the residents of Whitby realise that they are NOT guaranteed a space to park in with their ‘residents permits’. When their ZONE is full they will not be able to park in an adjoining zone. So where will you park?

    If those with businesses permits, purchase an annual £77 permit, clog up your Zone as well as those with residential permits, where will you park?

    Will you then drive 2 miles out to the Park & Ride, that closes its gates at 7pm, in the hope that you will leave your vehicle overnight, what are the overnight rules governing the Park & Ride?

    As NYCC’s area three manager Mr Nick West carefully points out ‘But for residents living in almost all of the zones, they will mostly be unable to park in neighbouring zones, something which many residents fear will cause problems as they compete with visitors for spaces.”.

    It will Mr West for the very simple reason that you did not carry out any research in Whitby as to how many cars residents have, how much off street parking each household has, how many spaces, (sorry not spaces as they are not guaranteed), ZONE permits required per household for each vehicle, unfortunate for the young person with their first car living at home with their parents and how many cars business must have with their one £77 permit plus their additional OPERATIONAL NEED permits for any other vehicle their staff require. Like estate agents, furniture shops, takeaway deliveries, nursing homes etc etc etc

    Sadly the more ZONES there are, in this case there are no fewer than eleven zones, the more restricted your options are, so forget parking in the adjacent ZONE even it’s streets are empty or full of parking spaces. You will have to just drive around and around and around your zone or fill one of Mr Wests parking meters. We will all be driving around and around our zones like zombies. What if we can’t find a space, in our zone, we cannot park in any other zones at all then what Mr West?

    It will not be the visitors driving around and around and around it will be the residents. As Mr West carefully points out “Visitors and commuters will be able to park in these areas too for up to three hours, depending on the zone, by displaying a parking disc, which will be available free of charge from shops, (WHAT SHOPS have agreed to do this Mr West?) But for residents living in almost all of the zones, they will mostly be unable to park in neighbouring zones, something which many residents fear will cause problems as they compete with visitors for spaces.”

    Yes, we forget, people running around like headless chickens looking for a parking disc, shop owners battered every day by people looking for a parking disc, to the shop shop shop shop, found one, back to the car.

    Of course many residents will fear as they compete with visitors on a three hour jolly. Especially the East side of town, hear this, Cllr Plant and Cllr Kenyon inc all NYCC management mentioned throughout this letter, how will you explain to the residents of the entire East Side of Whitby why they have been allocated SIXTY THREE, yes a meagre 63 on street residents parking spaces for the entire east side of Whitby. 400 buildings and say a hundred businesses, rowing clubs, pubs, shops, restaurants, residents, holiday cottages, Whitby’s thriving market place……….

    What about all the hundred or so business permits that will have to be handed out to businesses on the East side inc those special “OPERATIONAL NEED” cushy numbers handed out by the “OPERATIONAL NEED” team nudge nudge wink wink. More about those as you read on.

    What about all the holiday cottages, will they get a business permit or two on an OPERATIONAL NEED TO KNOW basis and a nudge nudge wink wink “OPERATIONAL NEED” permit for a second vehicle.

    • Richard Ineson August 22, 2013 at 6:22 am - Reply

      Tom, It’s not true to say that Mr.West did not carry out any research, the members of the Whitby and District Tourist Association, Executive member Miss Kenyon, (who also was the Chair of one of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS and who also chose the Chairs of the other two groups) were asked how many car parking spaces they would like, 110 members responded, saying that they needed 700 spaces. Of course the residents of the east side were not asked anything about their requirements, in fact to avoid any complications, the east side STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUP,did not even have a dedicated residents’ representative, but naturally the tourist associations were well represented, we wouldn’t expect anything less. Trebles and ‘operational needs’ all round.

  6. Tom Brodrick August 20, 2013 at 11:19 pm - Reply

    Calling all shop keepers and business owners, boycott giving out NYCC’s parking discs.

    Anyway it will decend into chaos and the system of zones will be abused as soon as the “enforcers” go home to bed.

    Then residents will be waiting behind twitching curtains for those parking in the wrong zone, there will be fights, fallouts, name calling, slanging matches.

    Residents taking photos on their iphones or small movie clips of their zone abusing neighbour, dobbing them in, visitors parking up a exactly three hours before the time limit leaving their cars there all night.

    What an awful scenario, it would make an excellent movie, everyone decending on the town to visit friends ignoring the restrictions altogether when the enforcers have gone.

    Residents afraid of using up all their scratch cards, sat on their front step looking out for the enforcers.

    What a dumb horrid scheme.

  7. Richard Ineson August 21, 2013 at 6:22 am - Reply

    Many people in Whitby have been taken in by the propaganda issued by the Highways Department, “the P&R scheme aims to give priority to residents to park their cars” and have read no further. Far from giving priority to residents, all of the parking spaces in all of the zones will be available to anyone, via the disc parking scheme, scratch cards, business permits etc. The zone system will prevent residents from parking in zones adjacent to their own so, when their own zone is full of cars belonging to day trippers, commuters, customers of the hotels and B&B establishments, they will have nowhere to park at all. A little known fact is that the original propaganda ( “the P&R scheme aims to give priority to residents to park their cars”) was dropped and when I reminded Richard Flinton, CEO. NYCC that, “As there will be no overnight parking on the park and ride car park so the P&R scheme will only cater for ‘day trippers'”, it was replaced by “This is the primary purpose of the P&R scheme” i.e. the primary purpose of the P&R scheme is to provide car parking for ‘day trippers’. Good news for the boozers, cafes, shops, amusement arcades, etc. but why should the residents of Whitby pay to provide these businesses with customers and, in doing so, lose all the parking spaces which are currently available to them and, have to pay for a parking permit for a parking space which will not exist?

  8. Nigel Ward August 21, 2013 at 3:28 pm - Reply
  9. jgh August 21, 2013 at 6:14 pm - Reply

    In all these “Park’n’Ride” proposals I never see anything about the “ride” component. I tend to use my car as a semi-mobile cupboard, I’ll park somewhere quiet 20 or 30 minutes walk from where-ever I’m going, and go back to the car the next day to get things. So, will I be trekking back and forth to Cross Butts? Will it be a free bus or a paid bus? And this is the first I’ve seen that it will close overnight. Where on earth do people who are here for more than half a day put their car?

    • Richard Ineson August 21, 2013 at 6:48 pm - Reply

      Yes, the park and ride car park will close at 7.00 pm. because, in the words of Richard Flinton, CEO NYCC, the main aim of the park and ride scheme is, ‘to cater for day trippers’. People who park at the Cross Butts site will, if the car park is full to capacity, 450 spaces, be leaving Whitby by 6.00 pm to ensure that they are out of the car park by 7.00 pm. I cannot see how this will benefit anyone other than the boozers, chips shops, cafes, amusement arcades, etc. but then again the memberships of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS who decided on the parking arrangements in connection with the P&R scheme were dominated by members of the commercial sector.

    • Tom Brodrick August 21, 2013 at 8:43 pm - Reply

      AN EXCELLENT POINT JGH

      NYCC’s Website States that
      “The process of commissioning the park and ride bus services, both into the town and for the Esk Valley hopper services, is also well under way. The tender will be advertised in August and the service commissioned by January 2014, ready to start promptly next Easter.”

      1) Cllr Plant & Cllr Kenyon can you show us the outcome of the commissioning the park and ride bus services, both into the town and for the upper Esk Valley hopper services.”? Did you get the funding on the back of the bus services because as far as I was aware these are being slashed! Contrary to the lies being told when you won the millions of pounds grant aid for improving those services via a Park & Ride?

      THE RIDE, TELL US ABOUT THE RIDE

      1) What time does it close?
      2) What time does it open?
      3) What if there are vehicles in the P&R after closing?
      4) What if someone has eg due to a sprained ankle req hospital treatment is too late and they live in Leeds? How will they get home?
      5) Can Zone Permit holders part there if their Zone is full?
      6) How much will it cost to use?
      7) What if people do not use it?
      8) What if people just switch zones each time a three hour session is up?
      9) Will business staff be able to use it?
      10) If so business staff (200) will easily fill it before 8am, then what?

      • jgh August 22, 2013 at 6:15 pm - Reply

        Very good question considering NYCC are about to slash the funding support for the West Cliff, Hospital and Helredale nipper services.

  10. Richard Ineson August 21, 2013 at 6:51 pm - Reply

    The details of the car parking scheme were decided by three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS, the members of which were unelected, unmandated, supposedly anonymous, and unaccountable.

    The identities of the members of these SSGs were supposed to be kept secret – the DATA PROTECTiON ACT was quoted to me when I asked about this matter, fortunately, a public spirited person who had access to this information and who could see no credible reason for it to be kept secret, released the information.

    The memberships of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS were as follows:-
    One entire Stakeholder Steering Group was selected by Cllr Kenyon – an Executive member of the Whitby and District Tourism Association, she also selected the Chairs of the other two groups, there was at least one member of the various tourist associations on each group.
    Incidentally, the membership of these groups was supposed to remain confidential.
    The minutes/notes of the proceedings of the meetings of these groups are only available in a redacted form and are very sketchy, in any case.
    Many people, including myself, say that the tourist associations were over-represented on these groups.
    Two of the SSGs had a specific, designated, representative of the views of the residents in the particular area covered by those particular SSGs. The east side of Whitby had no designated, specific, resident representation.
    The supposedly secret memberships of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS were as follows:-
    The Chair of the secret Whitby Traffic Partnership, Conservative Cllr. Jane Kenyon, (also an Executive member of the Whitby and District Tourist Association) in conjunction with Conservative Cllr. Joe Plant, recommended the make up, including choosing the Chairs of the other two groups, of the three SSGs.
    The individual Chairs selected the residents’ representatives (please note that the East Side SSG, Chaired by Cllr. D.Clegg) did not have a residents’ representative).
    Whitby Town (Parish) Council nominated the Town Council representatives on SSGs 2&3.
    Please note that Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce) and Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association) were appointed to all three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS.
    SSG 1. Sandsend.
    Chair, Cllr. Jane Kenyon (also an Executive member of the Whitby and District Tourist Association), Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce), Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association) Christine Kroebel (Chair, Lythe PC), David Pybus (Residents’ Representative).
    SSG 2. West Cliff and Town Centre.
    Chair, Conservative Cllr. Joe Plant, Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce) Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association) Cllr. Mike Ward (SBC and Whitby Town Council) Cllr. Dickenson (Whitby Town Council) Barry Brown/Dr.Dunn (Residents’ Representatives).
    [Please note that I am informed that Barry Brown was never invited to any of the meetings of this group, neither did he receive any documents or help to make any decisions relating to this group].
    SSG 3. Church Street/East Side.
    Chair, Conservative Cllr. D.Clegg (Chair of Capt. Cook Tourist Association), Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce), Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association), Conservative Cllr. Sandra Turner (SBC), Cllr. Steve Smith/Cllr. Pitts (WTC).
    [Please note that, unlike the other two groups, there was no residents’ representation on this group. The residents of the East Side of Whitby had no representative on the SSG which supposedly represented their views].

  11. Richard Ineson August 22, 2013 at 6:35 am - Reply

    Is it merely a coincidence that this latest P&R consultation, which was supposed to be held in the Spring, is being held in August, when most people are on holiday and unable to comment?

  12. Joseph Hughes August 22, 2013 at 10:24 am - Reply

    Can I just sneak this little link to the One-Zone Parking For Whitby in here:

    http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/one-zone-parking-for-whitby

  13. Tom Brodrick August 22, 2013 at 6:18 pm - Reply

    (‘Disc’ or’Permit Holders Only’) Parking Scheme Zones – A, B, D, E, ES Epn F, G, H, HS, J
    and K
    Permit
    Description
    Cost – annual unless
    otherwise stated
    Residents
    1st permit – discounted to €s
    (usually f17) until 2017, when price will
    rise in line with the rest of the Borough.
    2nd permil – 827
    3rd and additional permit – f.44
    Free to disabled badge holders,
    persons receiving disability benefit,
    income support, guaranteed pension
    credit, job seekers allowance,
    employment and support allowance.
    Residents Visitors
    Maximum 50 pei household per
    calendar year
    10 pence each
    zone specific
    card valid for 1 dav
    Holiday
    Accommodation
    Sctratchcards
    Discounted to 50p per card (usually
    El .60) until 2017, when price witl rise
    in line with the rest of the Borough.
    Zone spbcific. Card valid for 4 davs.
    Trades Daily
    Permit €1 per day
    €6 per week
    Business 1st permit – t77
    2nd permit – €154
    3rd permit – 8231
    4th and additional permit – 8308
    Tradespersons 1st permit – E26
    2nd permit – t52
    3rd permit – 177
    4th and additional permit – 8102
    Permit
    Description
    Cost – annual unless
    otherwise stated
    Carers Free
    Special Carers Free
    Garage €20 per permit
    Health Emergency
    Badge (HEB) Free to medical profession such as;
    Doctors, Midwives,Registered Nurses,
    Health Visitors, Dental Surgeons.
    EXEMPTIONS
    Emergency services
    ljtatutory
    undertakers
    Post Office For collection/delivery
    Highway authority Only when necessary
    Essential building
    ooerations
    Blue Badge holders
    Weddings Official vehicles only
    Funerals Official vehicles only
    A copy of the draft Order, together with maps showing the roads affected and a statement of the Council’s reasons
    for proposing to make the Order may be inspected at County Hall, Northallerton and at Whitby Tourist lnformation
    Centre, Langbourne Road, Whitby, North Yorkshire YO21 1YN during normal office hours from 9 August 2013 until
    30 August 2013.
    lf you wish to object to the proposed Order, you should;$end the grounds for your objection, in writing, addressed to
    “Area 3Whitby Highways office, Whitby Highways Deilot, CholmleyWay, Whitby, North yorkshire Vo22.4Ne” or
    by e-mail (area3.whitbv@northyorks.sov.uk) by 30 August 2013.
    Dated 9 August 2013
    CAROLE DUNN

  14. Tom Brodrick August 22, 2013 at 6:23 pm - Reply

    What Nick West of NYCC doesn’t tell business people that it costs £707.00 to park 4 vehicles per annum.

    £308 for a 4th permit are you nuts

    Business 1st permit – £77
    2nd permit – £154
    3rd permit – £231
    4th and additional permit – £308

    • Tom Brodrick August 22, 2013 at 8:23 pm - Reply

      Wouldn’t you have thought that Trade Permits would be equally as expensive as Business Permits.
      Business people will be applying for Trade Permits.

      Business 1st permit – £77
      2nd permit – £154
      3rd permit – £231
      4th and additional permit – £308

      Tradespersons 1st permit – £26
      2nd permit – £52
      3rd permit – £177
      4th and additional permit – £102

  15. Tom Brodrick August 22, 2013 at 6:24 pm - Reply

    Correction it costs business people £770 for 4 permits.

  16. Tom Brodrick August 22, 2013 at 6:55 pm - Reply

    NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
    (PROHIBITION OF WAITING ANI}LOADING AND PROVISION OF PARKING)
    (VARIOUS ROADS IN THE DISTRICT OF SCARBOROUGH)
    NOTICE is her.eby given that North Yorkshire County Council proposes to make an Order under Sections 1(1), 2(1)
    to (3), 4(2), 32(1), 35(1) and 45 to 49 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Part lV of Schedule 9 to the 1984
    Act and under the Traffic Management Act 2004, the effect of which will be to introduce waiting, loading and parking
    restrictions on various roads in Whitby, as specified below:-
    3. From 9am to 7pm each day establish “on street” residents priority permit parking together with
    waiting limited to t hours, with a prohibition on return within I hour, for vehicles displaying the appropriate
    parking disc for non-residents on each of the following streets in Whitby.
    Belte Vue Terrace, East Terrace Back, Back Street from Crescent Avenue to John Sfree4 Back Street between 9
    Haverlock Place and 30 Hudson Sfreed Back Street from Crescent Avenue to Esplanade, Back Sfreef from the
    back of number 3 and 12 Royat Crescent, Back Street between 11/12 Esplanade to the back of 2 Esplanade, Back
    Sfreef from the back of 4 East Terrace to the back of 13 Esplanade, Back Sfreef from Crescent Place to
    Esplanade, Church Square, Crescent Avenue, Esplande, Hudson Sfreei John Street, Royal Crescent, The Road
    known as West Ctiff County Primary School at the rear of Langdale Terrace known a/so as Crescent Avenue Back
    Road.
    Albert Place, Back ST Hitda’s Terrace, Back Street between Albert Place and Wellington Terrace, Bagdale,
    Brunswick Sfreef, Clarence Place, Clarkson Sfree4 Cliff Street, Crescent Place, Hunter Street, Langbourne Road,
    New Quay Sfreef, Poptar Row, Routh Watk, Sitver Sfreef, ST Hitda’s Gardens, ST Hitda’s Terrace – between
    Chubb Hilt and the entrance to Pannett Park, Stonehouse Gardens, The Paddock, Walker Sfreef, Well Close
    Square, Well Close Terrace, Wellington Terrace.
    4. From 9am to 7pm each day establish’oon street” disc parking limited to t hour, with a prohibition
    on return,within t hour, for vehicles displaying the appropriate parking disc for non-residents on each of
    ‘the following streets in Whitby, no exemptions for permits or scratchcards.
    Brunswick Sfreel Flovrergate, Skinner Sfreel St Hilda’s Terrace – between Skinner Str and the entrance of
    Pannett Park.
    Spring Hill, Windsor Terrace.
    Church Sfreef – West Side, between Bridge Sfreef and Grape Lane.
    9. Prohibit, at any times or between specified times, waiting by vehicles on those lengths of road /isfed
    above in items 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7 and I in Whitby and Sandsend which are either not designated for parking’ at
    junctions, entranges and crossing points and currently do not have any existing waiting prohibitions’
    A copy of the draft Order, together with maps showing the roads affected and a statement of the Council’s reasons
    for proposing to make the Order may be inspected at County Hall, Northallerton and at Whitby Tourist lnformation
    Centre, Lanjbourne Road, Whitby, North Yorkshire YO21 1YN during normal office hours from 9 August 2013 until
    30 August 201 3.
    lf you wish to object to the proposed Order, you should send the grounds for your objection, in writing, addressed to
    “Area 3 Whitby Highways Office, Whitby Highways Depot, Cholmley Way, Whitby, North Yorkshire YO22 4NQ” or
    by e-mail (area3.whitby@northvorks.qov.uk) by 30 August 2013.
    Dated 9 August 2013
    CAROLE DUNN
    Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services)
    County Hall
    NORTHALLERTON

  17. Nigel Ward August 23, 2013 at 8:50 am - Reply

    The Whitby Gazette would do well to direct its readers to Real Whitby, where the true nature of the Zonal Parking proposals are laid out in excruciating detail:

    http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/business/parking-will-never-be-the-same-again-1-5957207

    Highway robbery, by any other name.

  18. Nigel Ward August 26, 2013 at 8:20 pm - Reply

    The Rt,Hon. Eric PICKLES, in today’s Mirror:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eric-pickles-blames-speed-bumps-2225459

    Mr Pickles will also release guidance to Town Halls to make sure their parking rules aim to rejuvenate high streets, rather than raising revenue by “penalising” drivers.

    [“RATHER THAN RAISING REVENUE” – got that?]

    Mr Pickles said simpler rules would be given to councils this week with guidance on how to boost walking and cycling – without penalising car users.

    He said: “Draconian town hall parking policies and street clutter can make driving into town centres unnecessarily stressful and actually create more congestion because of lack of places to park.

    “Anti-car measures are driving motorists into the arms of internet retailers and out-of-town superstores.

    “Trying to find somewhere to park is an obstacle course in too many of our towns, cities and seaside resorts.”

  19. Richard Ineson August 28, 2013 at 8:33 am - Reply

    Nick West constantly claims that 78% of residents are in favour of the parking scheme, so how can this be true? The main question in the 2010 so called ‘public consultation’ was this, “Do you support the introduction of controlled parking zones to provide priority for residents?”. Sounds good doesn’t it? Naturally, everyone took this at face value and many, but not all (the percentages varied from 52.9% to 84.9% in each zone) voted for the proposal. I read the small print, the scheme does not give priority to residents at all, this is SPIN DOCTORING, in the best traditions of Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, anybody can park in any of the zones, providing that you either have a resident’s permit, a scratch card, a tradesman’s permit, a business permit, or a parking disc. The whole scheme is a con trick, and the so called survey was ‘fixed’ you don’t have to live in Zimbabwe to see how democracy can be manipulated to serve the ends of a vested interest minority.

    • Jeff Booth August 29, 2013 at 9:58 pm - Reply

      I suppose one way would be to only count the votes that are mainly positive. A bit like when I filled in the online questionnaire last night only to have the website tell me that it wasnt possible to process my views or something similar. No, 78% is not difficult.

  20. Jeff Booth August 29, 2013 at 7:01 pm - Reply

    Sick and tired of all this. We were not asked about this… so we shouldnt have to put up with it. There are many many reasons why this is a bad idea but we are being saddled with it by the greed of the councils.
    IT IS TIME TO STAND UP AND SAY NO.
    Positive, or do they call it affirmative, action. Lets simply stop it. Go out there in our hundreds and take the meters down, spray over the bay markings, tear down the signs…. we do not HAVE to put up with this.
    Come on Whitby…. I`m ready … are you ?
    Jeff

  21. Jeff Booth August 29, 2013 at 9:55 pm - Reply

    just occurred to me, as this is such an important and town-changing argument…. lets have a referendum. Let the people of Whitby decide what is best for our town. Democracy in action.

  22. Daryl Smiler August 30, 2013 at 5:55 pm - Reply

    It amazes me that following the recent Gazette article there is a sudden outcry. All this has been in the pipeline for literally years, including details of the parking restrictions and charge proposals. Nevertheless the mantra sung by most people I met until now was, Park and Ride – Good Thing.

    This is simply because most people appear not to have read the information previously published about parking restrictions and charges in and around the town that go together with the Park and Ride. Its astounding how quickly they’ve changed their stance after the facts have been spelled out to them.

    Its rather unfair, therefore for Mr Booth and the like to start shouting as though its something that has just been sprung upon us. He and others who now object should have done so long ago.

    Perhaps Mr Ineson a long time objector, pricipally about cost, could also learn a little about what motivates people and begin marshalling arguments that will encourage people to listen and act.

    Personally I don’t care whether the Park and Ride comes about or not, it won’t make much difference. What I am against though is any interferance with the current parking arrangements. Even a single zone will not serve the town well.

    • Jeff Booth August 30, 2013 at 10:17 pm - Reply

      ok… so you say this knowledge has been in the public domain for years, well I never saw it, or perhaps so little was made of it, by intention or not, that the Park and Ride was the matter that got most attention.
      Well the matter is on my radar now and I am commenting on it now, as is my right.
      and yes… we all thought that a Park and Ride might be a good thing IF it was set up correctly…. but I do not remember being told of the greed of SBC and NYCC wanting to screw between 1 and 2 MILLION pounds out of our local economy each year. Because that is what it will amount to and for all us small local businesses that is a BIG hit.
      So yes, perhaps I should have read the small print on the back of the packet when it came to the Park and Ride…. or perhaps it could have been more clearly spelt out, but that is not the way our upstanding honest councils work is it ? and the plans certainly wouldnt have got to this stage if they had been more open and honest.

  23. Richard Ineson August 31, 2013 at 7:51 am - Reply

    Many people in Whitby have been taken in by the propaganda issued by the Highways Department, “the P&R scheme aims to give priority to residents to park their cars” and have read no further. Far from giving priority to residents, all of the parking spaces in all of the zones will be available to anyone, via the disc parking scheme, scratch cards, business permits etc. The zone system will prevent residents from parking in zones adjacent to their own so, when their own zone is full of cars belonging to day trippers, commuters, customers of the hotels and B&B establishments, they will have nowhere to park at all. A little known fact is that the original propaganda ( “the P&R scheme aims to give priority to residents to park their cars”) was dropped and when I reminded Richard Flinton, CEO. NYCC that, “As there will be no overnight parking on the park and ride car park so the P&R scheme will only cater for ‘day trippers’”, it was replaced by “This is the primary purpose of the P&R scheme” i.e. the primary purpose of the P&R scheme is to provide car parking for ‘day trippers’. Good news for the boozers, cafes, shops, amusement arcades, etc. but why should the residents of Whitby pay to provide these businesses with customers and, in doing so, lose all the parking spaces which are currently available to them and, have to pay for a parking permit for a parking space which will not exist?

    My objections to this scheme have covered every aspect of the proposals, including the cost; I have spoken out against the abuse of the democratic process by the use of the STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUP system,and the secret membership/meetings of the so called WHITBY TRAFFIC PARTNERSHIP. I highlighted the fact that the east side had been allocated just 63 spaces out of a total of 2200, I also exposed the notes of the SSG meeting where 110 members of the Whitby and District Tourist Association said that they required 700 spaces for their members, all of this has been documented on Real Whitby in several extensive articles.

  24. Richard Ineson August 31, 2013 at 8:21 am - Reply

    I am sure that many people will be interested to know the memberships of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS which considered/decided upon the controlled parking zones proposed for Whitby town, in connection with the park and ride scheme and consequently the numbers of parking spaces available in each zone.
    The identities of the members of these SSGs were supposed to be kept secret – the DATA PROTECTION ACT was quoted to me when I asked about this matter, fortunately, a public spirited person who had access to this information and who could see no credible reason for it to be kept secret, released the information.
    The memberships of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS were as follows:-
    One entire Stakeholder Steering Group was selected by Cllr Kenyon – an Executive member of the Whitby and District Tourism Association, she also selected the Chairs of the other two groups, there was at least one member of the various tourist associations on each group.
    Incidentally, the membership of these groups was supposed to remain confidential.
    The minutes/notes of the proceedings of the meetings of these groups are only available in a redacted form and are very sketchy, in any case.
    Many people, including myself, say that the tourist associations were over-represented on these groups.
    Two of the SSGs had a specific, designated, representative of the views of the residents in the particular area covered by those particular SSGs. The east side of Whitby had no designated, specific, resident representation.
    The supposedly secret memberships of the three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS were as follows:-
    The Chair of the secret Whitby Traffic Partnership, Conservative Cllr. Jane Kenyon, (also an Executive member of the Whitby and District Tourist Association) in conjunction with Conservative Cllr. Joe Plant, recommended the makeup, including choosing the Chairs of the other two groups, of the three SSGs.
    The individual Chairs selected the residents’ representatives (please note that the East Side SSG, Chaired by Cllr. D.Clegg) did not have a residents’ representative).
    Whitby Town (Parish) Council nominated the Town Council representatives on SSGs 2&3.
    Please note that Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce) and Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association) were appointed to all three STAKEHOLDER STEERING GROUPS.
    SSG 1. Sandsend.
    Chair, Conservative Cllr. Jane Kenyon (also an Executive member of the Whitby and District Tourist Association), Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce), Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association) Christine Kroebel (Chair, Lythe PC), David Pybus (Residents’ Representative).
    SSG 2. West Cliff and Town Centre.
    Chair, Conservative Cllr. Joe Plant, Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce) Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association) Cllr. Mike Ward (SBC and Whitby Town Council) Cllr. Dickenson (Whitby Town Council) Barry Brown/Dr.Dunn (Residents’ Representatives).
    [Please note that I am informed that Barry Brown was never invited to any of the meetings of this group, neither did he receive any documents or help to make any decisions relating to this group].
    SSG 3. Church Street/East Side.
    Chair, Conservative Cllr. D.Clegg (Chair of Capt. Cook Tourist Association & shopkeeper), Dalton Peake (Whitby Chamber of Commerce), Tony Charlton (Whitby Hospitality Association), Conservative Cllr. Sandra Turner (shopkeeper) (SBC), Cllr. Steve Smith (shopkeeper) /Cllr. Pitts (WTC).
    [Please note that, unlike the other two groups, there was no residents’ representation on this group. The residents of the East Side of Whitby had no dedicated representative on the SSG which supposedly represented their views].

  25. Nigel Ward September 12, 2013 at 3:05 pm - Reply

    It is encouraging to see that Whitby residents are at last getting to grips with the truth about this exercise in lining the adminstration’s coffers – at the expense of the residents:

    http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/business/park-and-ride-the-figures-don-t-add-up-1-6043590

  26. Chris Hardy May 7, 2015 at 4:40 pm - Reply

    I would like to comment as a sometime resident and longtime tourist of Whitby /Scarborough. In short I won’t be returning util the parking meter’s are removed. They are an absolute disgrace. I could not believe it when I first came to Scarborough north beach for a walk in March (out of season so no congestion) and found that I had to pay just for the ”privilege’ of being there. so I left for Sansend nobody on the cliffs at all but I still had to pay. Who is responsible for this rubbish? Can you imagine the impact on low income families wanting to spend a week at the beach with their you families ??? the north Yorkshire coast has been transformed into nothing more than a capitalist venture. all sense of freedom has been removed the character changed and ruined,. It now looks like any other inner city slum. I am now taking every penny abroad to spend. god help local small businesses and people trying to get to work not to mention residents. Who ever did it has ruined it for me and my family, over the years we spent thousands of pounds in the area. I would be interested to know how much has been spent putting this debacle into operation. I’m of to greener freer pastures Suck it up North Yorkshire.

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.